Should people have a right to privacy?

[Darth Raptor]

Not really, since then it would make abuse easier, and would place less incentive for authorities to make the law keep pace with technological development.

New source of information access? When is the law restricting the government's access coming up? Anytime soon? Probably not.

"Vague" doesn't just equal "versatile in a way that will benefit the people". It's also open to creative interpretation by your scary statists. Look at the US wiretapping scandal. Would we have been better served to have our legal language be even more vague? IMO, the entire crux of that problem was that there weren't enough laws explicitly stating "YOU CAN'T DO THAT SHIT!".

Mutual oversight of branches of government, while imperfect, is still better than giving them de facto carte blanche.

I'm not arguing against checks and ballances or mutual oversight. I'm saying they have that they already have that virtual blank check anyway simply by the nature of modern information and communications. If you really want to protect the people, you'll need to do better than that.

That too can be done: these types of measures are not mutually exclusive after all. However, I disagree that it would be trivially easy to catch violations: if it is "impossible" to prevent them from accessing certain types of information, how are you going to prevent them from acting on certain types of information during investigations? The specifics of investigations are not on the public record, after all.

Just what types of information are you talking about? Embarassing activities or illegal ones? If you have a military-grade weapons cache in your basement, I WANT the government to act on that. If you're worried about the government hauling your ass off to the gulag for sodomy, you've got bigger problems in your country than privacy issues.

Moreover, government agencies are masters at leaking sensetive information while keeping the particular perp unknown.

I see. You're worried about corrupt state officials leaking the private affairs of their political opponents to demolish their careers. Or trade secrets to demolish industry rivals. Correct? In the case of the former there's not much you can do about that under any system. Celebrities and politicians have even less privacy than we do. If you wanted to pretect their "right" to privacy (a laughable aim, IMO), we'd need an even more closed society than we already have. That's independent of any privacy debate. Celebs and politicians will either have to start keeping their noses clean or the people will have to stop caring about stupid shit. However, if it's something only the government would know, it's pretty obvious who's behind the leak (and you can help this along by minimizing the number of agents privy to that information). And if trade secrets got leaked by the state illegally, it would mean the fucking Battle of Armageddon.

[brianeyci]

So you wouldn't argue if they set a camera up in your shower for anyone to see? We have to have SOME kinds of privacy for heaven's sake. Why shouldn't that be a right?

So you wouldn't argue if they banned smoking? We have to have SOME kinds of pleasure for heaven's sake. Why shouldn't that be a right?

So you wouldn't argue if they banned guns? We have to have SOME kinds of protection, for heaven's sake. Why shouldn't that be a right?

Because I said so is not an argument genius. And you fail to see that someone can support privacy in certain cases, without considering it a right. I can support privacy in my shower without considering privacy in of itself a right. For example I support gun ownership in certain cases. Doesn't mean I consider gun ownership a right. Just because something isn't a right, doesn't mean I don't want to have it. It just means I don't lump it in the same category as medical care, shelter, food, etc., which are real rights. Feeling good because you're alone is not a right. What part of that do you not understand.

[brianeyci]

ghetto edit: to make my point clearer. I would support cameras in showers of prisoners to prevent gang rape. However, I would not deny medical care to any prisoner, any human being, if I could help it. That's what makes medical care a right and privacy not a right.

Now you're going to go on about the camera in my shower example. Well guess what, I'd oppose that too, but not because I feel uncomfortable with the government watching me. Because I think that's a waste of limited government resources. Looks like you expected to project your insecurities onto me JustForFun000 but sorry I don't have a problem with that.

[Justforfun000]

So you wouldn't argue if they banned smoking? We have to have SOME kinds of pleasure for heaven's sake. Why shouldn't that be a right?

This is not comparable in the slightest. What does smoking a cigarette, and you haven't even defined whether this is in an environment only the person themself would be affected, have to do with a majority opinion of wanting privacy in the case of bathing in your own home? A pleasure in using a substance that harms your bodily functions and those around you that inhale it, as opposed to cleansing yourself with a personal grooming routine in your own private residence? What the fuck is everyone smoking here to argue against such an obviously popular concept of expectation? We make laws based on what the majority think is socially proper as a basis in many cases. IF this runs into a roadblock of prejudice, bigotry and what have you, then we look more carefully and make sure no one is getting shafted, but that isn't necessary for every bloody issue. This are some thingg that are culturally accepted and expected.

You try to tell me how many places in the world you could go into a private residence and start filming sombody in the bathroom and start spewing your bullshit "Well that's just circular logic, you don't have right to privacy" crap. Lets see how far you get. I mean come one! Your talking idiocy here. There is a REASON it's so culturally common, and unlike specific human rights issues that actually have a point, there isn't any NEED to come up with "logical arguments" to your exacting standards that you are implying. It's going to be that way because most people WANT it that way and that's too fucking bad.l Most people WILL consider such things as a generalized right, and since it does not harm anyone else, it shouldn't be an issue or HAVE to be defended.

Because I said so is not an argument genius. And you fail to see that someone can support privacy in certain cases, without considering it a right. I can support privacy in my shower without considering privacy in of itself a right.

Where you get this "because I said so" is beyond me. It's not a crime to speak in the Imperial sense of "we the people" when discussing such common sense cultural issues. The great majority of the world is in favour of privacy in regards to body nakedness when in the privacy of their own home if this is their wish. Me referencing this blatantly obvious fact, does not in any way, shape or form, profess that I am MYSELF declaring this a "right".
Anyways, it's too late to get into this fully. Later.

[R. U. Serious]

A law that states that the government should respect a citizen's privacy? Leaving aside the infeasibility of that for a moment, wouldn't a better law be worded as what information the government CAN'T access?

In Germany there is a law concerning privacy. If the police want to use certain investigative techniques, they need to go to a judge, for example if they want secret audio-monitoring in private homes (wohnraumüberwachung), it's being used a few dozen times a year according to official documents. And even then, certain private conversations are off limits, like between a suspect and his wife, his priest etc. There is currently a debate over whether secret hacking of suspects computers should be legalized or not - for that to become legal, the "constitution" (basic law/grundgesetz) would have to be changed - the topic is highly controversial, and it looks like it's not going to happen.

Here's the problem: You have agencies of the government with the capability to access this information. For obvious national security reasons, the only oversight these agencies get are from other arms of the government. Barring a spectacular security leak, it's therefore impossible for the citizen to know if the government is breaking its own privacy laws or not.

That might be a problem, but it's something that can be acted on and the effects of problems can be mitigated (though obviosuly not completely solved - but why should that stop from trying?). Don't you think it makes a difference to behaviour if people know that something is criminal and they could be prosecuted over it, or if it's a free for all?

A business could install secret and well hiddn cameras in the toilets to monitor employees. This would also not become public, unless somebody leaked it - do you support making it legal for business to do install cameras in toilets to monitor employees?

Like I said earlier, a much more feasible approach would be to regulate what information the government can act on and what information it can make public.

You know, this still applies when you have privacy laws, so having them is not a worse then only implementing your suggestion.

[Magus]

One could argue that it is generally bad policy to implement measures that are likely to cause a majority of the population discomfort and/or unhappiness without a compelling return on such action. Pissing off much of the local population is not usually a productive thing to do, especially without any real sort of gains to be expected. This viewpoint would include all four of JustForFun's examples, without appealing to emotion or demanding a blanket "right to privacy."

[brianeyci]

This is not comparable in the slightest. What does smoking a cigarette, and you haven't even defined whether this is in an environment only the person themself would be affected, have to do with a majority opinion of wanting privacy in the case of bathing in your own home? A pleasure in using a substance that harms your bodily functions and those around you that inhale it, as opposed to cleansing yourself with a personal grooming routine in your own private residence? What the fuck is everyone smoking here to argue against such an obviously popular concept of expectation? We make laws based on what the majority think is socially proper as a basis in many cases. IF this runs into a roadblock of prejudice, bigotry and what have you, then we look more carefully and make sure no one is getting shafted, but that isn't necessary for every bloody issue. This are some thingg that are culturally accepted and expected.

You try to tell me how many places in the world you could go into a private residence and start filming sombody in the bathroom and start spewing your bullshit "Well that's just circular logic, you don't have right to privacy" crap. Lets see how far you get. I mean come one! Your talking idiocy here. There is a REASON it's so culturally common, and unlike specific human rights issues that actually have a point, there isn't any NEED to come up with "logical arguments" to your exacting standards that you are implying. It's going to be that way because most people WANT it that way and that's too fucking bad.l Most people WILL consider such things as a generalized right, and since it does not harm anyone else, it shouldn't be an issue or HAVE to be defended.

Bullshit. This isn't cultural tolerance class, this is SLAM. Try arguing the merits of privacy besides "everybody wants it."

Here's an idea for you. In Robert Sawyer's Hominids universe, the Neanderthals have some kind of technology implanted in their brain that records everything. This knowledge is stored, to be accessed by special arbiters in the case of a crime. Now if you consider privacy a right, then a person has a right to object to this kind of 24/7 monitoring. Which of course they do not. It's not a right that you can hide yourself from the government. There's other reasons why you would not want a camera in your head all the time but privacy aka feeling good about being alone is not one of them.

Where you get this "because I said so" is beyond me. It's not a crime to speak in the Imperial sense of "we the people" when discussing such common sense cultural issues. The great majority of the world is in favour of privacy in regards to body nakedness when in the privacy of their own home if this is their wish. Me referencing this blatantly obvious fact, does not in any way, shape or form, profess that I am MYSELF declaring this a "right".

Anyways, it's too late to get into this fully. Later.

Appeal to popularity fallacy. You know the majority of people in the world want religion. Why don't you try arguing the merits of privacy instead of screaming "we the people." Besides, what the fuck do you know about all people. If there was a perfect system of monitoring that could prevent all crime I'm sure many people would consider cameras in showers. The fact is such a system is impractical, to have cameras everywhere, so it's a waste to have a camera in a home shower where there will likely be no crimes.

[Covenant]

I don't believe we have an inherent right to privacy, no. We establish laws to enact privacy protections the same way we enact laws to protect the rights of the accused. I believe there's no doubt a completely transparent society would offer many advantages to law enforcement, but the idea of it scares people, so they wouldn't vote for people who opt for it.

One doesn't need to have a right in the first place before you set up laws to protect it, afterall. The question isn't, however, IF we have such a right but if we SHOULD try to create or support one. And more specifically, from the Government.

I'm most interested in the latter statement. From The Government. I think it's more important to have privacy protections against trespass from my fellow citizens than from the Government. If information was collected about my daily life, filed away, and never touched until it was pertinent to a criminal investigation or something similar, I can't really disagree too heavily.

So I'm interested in protecting my privacy rights from incursion from John Q Public who works at the Pentagon and decides to watch me in the shower on his lunchbreak, but I have really nothing against the idea of mass information collection. The fact is, we can still make it illegal for JQ Public to watch me in the shower without saying that I have an absolute privacy right from the Government. It's a matter of due process. They may be allowed to collect all the information I create in daily life, but using or reviewing or disseminating that information should be tightly controlled. And there's a very pragmatic reason for that--it would be extremely damaging to the economy if businesses and citizens were to become transparent to each other via a little political corruption.

[R. U. Serious]

From The Government. I think it's more important to have privacy protections against trespass from my fellow citizens than from the Government.

I am sometimes amazed at the amount of trust people put into government. If history teaches us anything, then it's the fact that the "idealized" harmless and good government, exists in reality just as much as Marx's ideal of the worker/human. It's an illusion that seems plausible to some, because they haven't yet experienced how different the actual instances of each can really be.

[brianeyci]

The fact is, we can still make it illegal for JQ Public to watch me in the shower without saying that I have an absolute privacy right from the Government

The rambling about the shower is particularly annoying. Apparently in JustForFun000's world, when something is a right it should be always allowed, and if something is not a right it should be always disallowed. The former is right the latter is wrong. I sure can say I don't want someone coming into my shower without considering privacy a right for a million reasons.

My idea of a right is a need a human being should never be denied. In other words, rights to me are granted special status.

Especially laughable is him trying to argue that most people want it so it should be a right. Most people in the world do not want gays to marry.

There is also direct harm related to privacy. For example face veils obscure the face and prevent identification, and are also intimidating. But the point sails over his head.

[Lord Zentei]

Not really, since then it would make abuse easier, and would place less incentive for authorities to make the law keep pace with technological development.

New source of information access? When is the law restricting the government's access coming up? Anytime soon? Probably not.

"Vague" doesn't just equal "versatile in a way that will benefit the people". It's also open to creative interpretation by your scary statists. Look at the US wiretapping scandal. Would we have been better served to have our legal language be even more vague? IMO, the entire crux of that problem was that there weren't enough laws explicitly stating "YOU CAN'T DO THAT SHIT!".

That is at best another vote for both methods used in tandem, but does not refute my point on the law needing to keep pace with technology.

Mutual oversight of branches of government, while imperfect, is still better than giving them de facto carte blanche.

I'm not arguing against checks and ballances or mutual oversight. I'm saying they have that they already have that virtual blank check anyway simply by the nature of modern information and communications. If you really want to protect the people, you'll need to do better than that.

That it is easy for them to abuse people's privacy does not eliminate the justification for laws against doing such, quite the opposite. In any case, "needing to do better" does not preclude such provisions.

Just what types of information are you talking about? Embarassing activities or illegal ones? If you have a military-grade weapons cache in your basement, I WANT the government to act on that. If you're worried about the government hauling your ass off to the gulag for sodomy, you've got bigger problems in your country than privacy issues.

I submit that there are considerable degrees of seperation between the points you just mentioned, and less severe things than hauling someone off to a gulag.

Moreover, government agencies are masters at leaking sensetive information while keeping the particular perp unknown.

I see. You're worried about corrupt state officials leaking the private affairs of their political opponents to demolish their careers. Or trade secrets to demolish industry rivals. Correct? In the case of the former there's not much you can do about that under any system. Celebrities and politicians have even less privacy than we do. If you wanted to pretect their "right" to privacy (a laughable aim, IMO), we'd need an even more closed society than we already have.

In the case of corrupt state officials leaking the private affairs of their political opponents, it is not possible to eliminate it, but it can be made less easy. But why is the claim to the right of privacy "laughable"? And in what way is our society "closed"?

That's independent of any privacy debate. Celebs and politicians will either have to start keeping their noses clean or the people will have to stop caring about stupid shit. However, if it's something only the government would know, it's pretty obvious who's behind the leak (and you can help this along by minimizing the number of agents privy to that information).

Wait, you're arguing on the one hand that it is impossible to protect people's privacy because of how easy it is for government agencies to exceed their authority on the one hand, while on the other hand you assert that it is possible to restrict the knowledge to a small, select group of individuals?

And if trade secrets got leaked by the state illegally, it would mean the fucking Battle of Armageddon.

Huh?

[TheLemur]

If you're worried about the government hauling your ass off to the gulag for sodomy, you've got bigger problems in your country than privacy issues.

Ah. So it's okay if some random bureaucrat sets up cameras in your house, records every minute of your life, publishes it on the Internet, and then proceeds to send reports of your various activities to everyone you know making it impossible for you to get a job (the government actually did this to a certain extent during the McCarthy era). And it's all A-OK as long as they don't ship you off to a gulag?

If you wanted to pretect their "right" to privacy (a laughable aim, IMO),

Celebrities and politicians deliberately give up their privacy in exchange for fame and public recognition. If they want to do that, it's fine by me.

My idea of a right is a need a human being should never be denied.

Then we're going to have to disband an awful lot of the criminal justice system, because prisons deprive people of all kinds of rights. Most people see that as okay, because the rights of others also need protection.

There is also direct harm related to privacy. For example face veils obscure the face and prevent identification, and are also intimidating.

After all, how many deaths are caused by face veils every year? Except those related to not being able to see, probably zero.

The fact is, we can still make it illegal for JQ Public to watch me in the shower without saying that I have an absolute privacy right from the Government. It's a matter of due process.

What justifiable reason is there that the government should have any more right to this information than JQ Public? It's not like the vast majority of it has any legitimate purpose, and for the small fraction of it that does have a legitimate purpose, we already have court warrants.

Try arguing the merits of privacy besides "everybody wants it."

Is there any real reason for the merit of anything besides "everybody wants it"? I would be delighted if you can construct a noncircular, logical argument that derives any kind of moral statement without referring to "everybody wants it" somewhere.

Now if you consider privacy a right, then a person has a right to object to this kind of 24/7 monitoring.

If the information was stored in my brain and I had control over it (except in case of crimes), I wouldn't have any problem with this. But forcing it on everybody because they might possibly commit a crime is silly- should we also force everyone to wear GPS tags, get special permits to move from point A to B, and so forth? We have a name for that- it's called a "police state". The word "police" is in there for a reason; the whole idea of a police state is that the entire state needs to be treated as potential criminals and so therefore should be put under police restriction.

You know the majority of people in the world want religion.

Sure. They can have religion; I have no problem with this as long as they don't try and violate other's rights, and I suspect a great many people will agree.

Besides, what the fuck do you know about all people.

It is an instinctual reaction to become nervous or frightened when someone you don't know is watching you, especially in places that are supposed to be considered private.

[General Zod]

>snip<

I suggest learning how to put people's names in the paragraphs you're quoting. It's impossible to tell who you're arguing with.

[Justforfun000]

Thank you TheLemur. I'm glad to see someone who agrees with me. I was starting to feel like I woke up in the twilight zone here.

Bullshit. This isn't cultural tolerance class, this is SLAM. Try arguing the merits of privacy besides "everybody wants it."

And what the hell is wrong with everybody wanting it? Why the fuck should people justify what they want as a whole IF it does not harm others and it's not an illegal activity? I already clarified exceptions and I'm getting tired of assholes strawmanning me and most people remain silent about it. I did NOT say "when something is a right it should be always allowed, and if something is not a right it should be always disallowed." That's you taking your own damn interpretation and blowing it way out of proportion and puting words in my mouth. Stick to EXACTLY what I am saying or don't comment on it. I'm tired of correcting people because they can't fucking read.

Now if you consider privacy a right, then a person has a right to object to this kind of 24/7 monitoring. Which of course they do not. It's not a right that you can hide yourself from the government. There's other reasons why you would not want a camera in your head all the time but privacy aka feeling good about being alone is not one of them.

Ok, so switch the shoe to the other foot. Why should the government have the right to intrusion? To prevent crimes? So you'd justify any activity simply because it could prevent a crime? If you can demand that the right to privacy doesn't exist, then should I be able to demand to read government records on any individual or even military secret simply because they don't have a "right" to privacy?

Appeal to popularity fallacy. You know the majority of people in the world want religion.

And that is precisely why they DO have religion, and it's considered a right in most countries to have religious expression. You seem to think that if something isn't logically defended on your personal opinions of "merit", that it has no business being put forth as an argument. Well fuck you. I say it does, and so does the majority and that IS the power of a democracy. It should never be absolute, but tempered with limitations that prevent human rights violations that we establish and fine tune more and more with each passing year, we come closer to what is the ideal cultural balance.

People's desires ARE important, and nobody has any business demanding "logic" to be a part of it to be considered it as something with merit. Love is not a logical emotion and yet you would argue someone's love for someone would be completely fucking irrelevant because to YOU that isn't a "logical argument"? Therefore any emotional investment would be worthless? Shake your head. This is the real world.

[General Zod]

People's desires ARE important, and nobody has any business demanding "logic" to be a part of it to be considered it as something with merit. Love is not a logical emotion and yet you would argue someone's love for someone would be completely fucking irrelevant because to YOU that isn't a "logical argument"? Therefore any emotional investment would be worthless? Shake your head. This is the real world.

Here's a tip. If you think something is important but don't have any way of defending it logically, don't fucking try to. Simply admit that it's an irrational stance or you have no logically thought out defense and move on.

[Justforfun000]

Here's a tip. If you think something is important but don't have any way of defending it logically, don't fucking try to. Simply admit that it's an irrational stance or you have no logically thought out defense and move on.

Irrational is just another term for insensible, or nonsense. Just because you cannot defend it logically does NOT make it irrational or nonsense. This is semantic bullshit. IF someone demonstrates a heavy emotional interest in something, THAT in and of itself is important because it is important to THEM. Now I'm not referring to concepts and ideas because those are just points of view. I'm talking about people and their relationships with them, possessions, and activities that relate to their "pursuit to happiness".
By taking your suggestion at face value, you could dismiss someone's desire to volunteer at a youth orphanage as "irrational" because there isn't anything logical about caring about some other unrelated human being that you are not personally responsible for.
Yet if two people butted heads over a child in court, you can be damn sure their "illogical" feelings and activities relating to the child would matter, and be considered a REASONABLE argument for this persons claim to be allowed involvement. And like I said before in another example, people are awarded damages in court for pain and suffering, even when LOGICALLY, it might not be defensible. So what? If it's an 'irrational' emotion that is affecting them in a very real way, then it's JUST AS BLOODY IMPORTANT. Logic is a fine thing, but it's a tool of the world, it's not the world itself.

[General Zod]

Irrational is just another term for insensible, or nonsense. Just because you cannot defend it logically does NOT make it irrational or nonsense. This is semantic bullshit. IF someone demonstrates a heavy emotional interest in something, THAT in and of itself is important because it is important to THEM. Now I'm not referring to concepts and ideas because those are just points of view. I'm talking about people and their relationships with them, possessions, and activities that relate to their "pursuit to happiness".

I suggest trying again with fewer strawmen. If something cannot be defended logically, then it is by definition irrational, regardless of whatever other terms you try and label on top of it. Oh, and please learn how to use a dictionary.

Main Entry: 1ir·ra·tio·nal
Pronunciation: i-'ra-sh(&-)n&l, "i(r)-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin irrationalis, from in- + rationalis rational
: not rational: as a (1) : not endowed with reason or understanding (2) : lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence b : not governed by or according to reason <irrational fears> c Greek & Latin prosody (1) of a syllable : having a quantity other than that required by the meter (2) of a foot : containing such a syllable d (1) : being an irrational number <an irrational root of an equation> (2) : having a numerical value that is an irrational number <a length that is irrational>

By taking your suggestion at face value, you could dismiss someone's desire to volunteer at a youth orphanage as "irrational" because there isn't anything logical about caring about some other unrelated human being that you are not personally responsible for.

Just because something is irrational doesn't mean that what a person is doing is good or bad dumbass. It simply means that they don't have a logical reason for doing so.

Yet if two people butted heads over a child in court, you can be damn sure their "illogical" feelings and activities relating to the child would matter, and be considered a REASONABLE argument for this persons claim to be allowed involvement. And like I said before in another example, people are awarded damages in court for pain and suffering, even when LOGICALLY, it might not be defensible. So what? If it's an 'irrational' emotion that is affecting them in a very real way, then it's JUST AS BLOODY IMPORTANT. Logic is a fine thing, but it's a tool of the world, it's not the world itself.

Are you done whining yet? Now try actually reading what I'm saying and think before you post. Preferably without strawmanning me.

[Rye]

"I just want to" is irrational, even if it's doing something charitable. I don't think anyone would try to stop you doing something benign or helpful if you were doing it without some sort of rational basis. Rationality is defined by the faculty of reasoning, to be irrational is to do without that faculty, for instance just doing something because you want to. Like the times I've pissed on a frozen pond. That was an irrational thing to do, but it was fun and I wanted to do it.

If the action you want to do might hurt another person or if you want to convince someone else to do it too, you need to use reasoning to justify it.

[Justforfun000]

I suggest trying again with fewer strawmen. If something cannot be defended logically, then it is by definition irrational, regardless of whatever other terms you try and label on top of it. Oh, and please learn how to use a dictionary.

Your suggestion that if something doesn't fit the narrow definition of "logical", that you shouldn't even try to DEFEND it. That's bullshit. You are suggesting it is unimportant enough to defend just because of emotional stake in the issue. I say fuck that. It IS a valid reason in and of itself and if someone disgrees with me, tough. The courts don't. They make many rulings that take into account emotional involvement, so you have to get over this idea of "illogical" as being synonymous with "indefensible".

"Just because something is irrational doesn't mean that what a person is doing is good or bad dumbass. It simply means that they don't have a logical reason for doing so. "

And that would be fine if you stopped THERE, but you didn't. You want to take it further and suggest you shouldn't argue the MERITS of your feelings as being relevant if they are not logically defensible. Well some things cannot be defended by "logic".

Are you done whining yet? Now try actually reading what I'm saying and think before you post. Preferably without strawmanning me.

Are you done making sweepingly useless declarations? I'm not strawmanning you a bit unless you've unkowingly mis-typed your words. It's quite clear what you are saying. If you can't logically defend it, you shouldn't try to make it an arguement. Again I say that's bullshit.

[General Zod]

Your suggestion that if something doesn't fit the narrow definition of "logical", that you shouldn't even try to DEFEND it. That's bullshit. You are suggesting it is unimportant enough to defend just because of emotional stake in the issue. I say fuck that. It IS a valid reason in and of itself and if someone disgrees with me, tough. The courts don't. They make many rulings that take into account emotional involvement, so you have to get over this idea of "illogical" as being synonymous with "indefensible".

I said that you shouldn't attempt to defend it logically if there is no way to do so using logic. I did not say you shouldn't attempt to defend it whatsoever. So again knock off the strawmen.

And that would be fine if you stopped THERE, but you didn't. You want to take it further and suggest you shouldn't argue the MERITS of your feelings as being relevant if they are not logically defensible. Well some things cannot be defended by "logic".

Please point out where I said that retard. Oh wait. I didn't.

Are you done making sweepingly useless declarations? I'm not strawmanning you a bit unless you've unkowingly mis-typed your words. It's quite clear what you are saying. If you can't logically defend it, you shouldn't try to make it an arguement. Again I say that's bullshit.

See above.

[Justforfun000]

"I just want to" is irrational, even if it's doing something charitable. I don't think anyone would try to stop you doing something benign or helpful if you were doing it without some sort of rational basis. Rationality is defined by the faculty of reasoning, to be irrational is to do without that faculty, for instance just doing something because you want to. Like the times I've pissed on a frozen pond. That was an irrational thing to do, but it was fun and I wanted to do it.

If the action you want to do might hurt another person or if you want to convince someone else to do it too, you need to use reasoning to justify it.

Yes! I agree with you. I haven't tried to argue anything more than this. Just to comment on your one example, you might have wanted to piss on a frozen pond to see how much melting you could cause. I wouldn't define such curiosity as "irrational", it's perfectly rational. You want to see what the outcome will be. That is all you need for a "rational" argument. If you said "I want to piss on this ice because I believe piss and water forms a magical chemical that purifies the air", then THAT would be irrational because the entire premise makes no sense.
Wanting something because you care is in itself a RATIONAL reason.
You have a desire you wish fulfilled. Ergo, it logical to cause an action to fullfill that desire. That is rational everybody. You don't have to delve any further than that you know.

[General Zod]

Yes! I agree with you. I haven't tried to argue anything more than this. Just to comment on your one example, you might have wanted to piss on a frozen pond to see how much melting you could cause. I wouldn't define such curiosity as "irrational", it's perfectly rational. You want to see what the outcome will be. That is all you need for a "rational" argument. If you said "I want to piss on this ice because I believe piss and water forms a magical chemical that purifies the air", then THAT would be irrational because the entire premise makes no sense.

I suppose you'd argue that someone grabbing a live power line to find out what happens is being rational as well.

[Justforfun000]

I said that you shouldn't attempt to defend it logically if there is no way to do so using logic. I did not say you shouldn't attempt to defend it whatsoever. So again knock off the strawmen.

Well Jesus Christ! You still have to use the LOGIC of words to discuss something. It's logical enough to say "I have a valid emotional interest and it concerns me and my pursuit of happiness. On top of this, this is legal and of no harm to anyone else, so I should have right to do this". I see absolutely nothing wrong with that argument at all.

Please point out where I said that retard. Oh wait. I didn't.

Well your statement comes pretty damn close. As I've already pointed out, illogical does NOT become absolutely synonymous with "irrational" just because words might not be able to be formed appropriately to defend someone's argument. Logic is an extremely simplified method of deductive inference. It isn't the only criteria important in determining worth or points of view.

Here's a quote for you:

It is always better to say right out what you think without trying to prove anything much: for all our proofs are only variations of our opinions, and the contrary-minded listen neither to one nor the other.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832)

[Justforfun000]

I suppose you'd argue that someone grabbing a live power line to find out what happens is being rational as well.

Now you're being silly. What would be "rational" about deliberately electrocuting yourself? If you had half a brain, you'd KNOW what would happen would kill you.

Watching ice melt by the power of your piss flow is hardly an endeavour that is going to cause you or anyone else grievious harm, so I would say the curiosity you might have regarding such a trite experience is defensible as an experiment. If that's what you want to do.

[General Zod]

Well Jesus Christ! You still have to use the LOGIC of words to discuss something. It's logical enough to say "I have a valid emotional interest and it concerns me and my pursuit of happiness. On top of this, this is legal and of no harm to anyone else, so I should have right to do this". I see absolutely nothing wrong with that argument at all.

Only in a very loose layman's sense. You cannot use purely logical arguments to defend everything the way you're trying to do.

Well your statement comes pretty damn close. As I've already pointed out, illogical does NOT become absolutely synonymous with "irrational" just because words might not be able to be formed appropriately to defend someone's argument. Logic is an extremely simplified method of deductive inference. It isn't the only criteria important in determining worth or points of view.

Guess who else tries defending irrational arguments with logic? Fundies. Ever notice how much they try and convince people their magic sky pixie exists using bad logic and get smacked down for it? Same thing here.